3 ms·

Thanks, very interesting. I wonder, though, if there might be an argument from Lyft to the effect that, since both sides are waiving their right to the courts,

Thanks, very interesting. I wonder, though, if there might be an argument from Lyft to the effect that, since both sides are waiving their right to the courts, that the clause does not cause an "imbalance in the parties' rights", and is therefore not "unfair". It might be clearer if the protection was not couched in terms of "fairness", but simply declared mandatory arbitration clauses invalid in all circumstances. This is all merely idle speculation on my part though, I have absolutely no expertise in this.

PeterisP 10y ago
The last part resolves that, the law explicitly lists that "excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action" in general, and also "requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration" are unfair terms. The "fairness" part is because the same articles apply to a non-exhaustive (!) list of many, many other types of contractual clauses; coincidentally, most of the things listed as unfair and prohibited by this directive seem standard practice in USA contracts.